Brownfield sites are not the only answer to the Isle of Wight housing crisis, according to the Isle of Wight Council, which says there are simply not enough of those sites to solve the issue.
In the draft Island Planning Strategy (IPS), which is out for consultation, the local authority says despite what residents believe — that there is no need to build on greenfield land as there is more than enough brownfield land to build houses on — it is not the case.
To try and bring forward more brownfield sites as well as the development of brownfield land already having permission, the council is hoping to introduce a dedicated housing policy.
The IPS shows there are approximately 60 hectares on the brownfield register, with the capacity for around 1,500 homes — 600 of which already have planning permission. However, there are said to be 2,000 families on the housing register in urgent need of an affordable home.
The council hopes with the IPS, it can revise government housing targets and get 486 homes built on the Island a year, down from some estimates of over 1,000 a year. The authority is pleading the Island has exceptional circumstances and hopes to use the plan as a tool to argue its point.
Before the plan was published, the council approached other local councils, the public, agents and landowners to make them aware of anywhere they knew on the Island that was available for development. Of the 84 sites submitted, 25 were already on the brownfield register or known to the council, 45 were too small to be considered (yielding under 10 units) or inappropriate for housing. The remaining 14 highlighted were investigated further and 2 sites holding the potential yield of around 75 units had been included in the IPS. The rest were found to be too small, not available or had site-specific constraints which would make it impossible for them to be developed.
On the latest brownfield register (2020), there were 73 sites — 14 of which are owned by a public authority.
In the draft IPS, 60% of the homes allocated are on brownfield land, with the 2 key priority sites at Camp Hill and Newport Harbour, with the potential for at least 1,200 and 250 homes respectively, and both in public sector ownership.
The council is also proposing a new brownfield site policy: H9, ‘new housing on previously developed land’.
Compared to the current IPS the council are operating from, which is nearly 10 years old, the importance of brownfield sites is highlighted further with its own housing policy. The new policy says the council will support the ‘land use principle’ of residential-led development schemes on all brownfield sites.
In urban areas, brownfield sites should aim to deliver as many homes as possible.
In rural areas, brownfield sits should seek to identify and meet local housing needs, subject to scale and the built form of new dwellings being appropriate for the character of the area and not having a greater impact than the previous or existing use of the land.
A number of brownfield sites are allocated in the IPS for housing and employment opportunities, including:
- Medina Yard, Cowes – a mixed-use development providing at least 535 homes and 16,600m2 of non-residential floor space as well as the refurbishment of the Hammerhead Crane.
- Former Somerton Reservoir, Cowes – 146 homes
- Land at Moreys, Trafalgar Road, Newport – at least 100 homes
- Land at Red Funnel, East Cowes – at least 100 homes, tourist accommodation and 1,250m2
- The former Spa Hotel site, Shanklin Esplanade – at least 50 homes
Although they are allocated, the council are uncertain on how many dwellings they will deliver during the 15 years the plan spans.
Find me a local politician who will stop this madness and I & thousands of others will gladly vote for them. Doesn’t matter if they are blue, red, orange or green. We can survive fiscal ups and downs, but once open fields are being concreted, it’s game over. I am so angry.
I replied to this earlier on, but it was never posted – the first line of censorship. Nothing against the rules here, probably they just didn’t agree with me.
One needs to be very selective in classifying land – that which is worth protection and that which is not.
Farmland with fields, trees and hedgerows is very different from the vast prairies, such as is found at places like Wellow and Thorley. These areas have been subjected to ‘intensive agriculture’, where all the trees and hedges have been removed and the land subjected to frequent spraying of chemicals such as organo-phosphates and insecticides. They are now biological deserts, devoid of wildlife.
– Do we really want to protect such from being used for housing ?
– Would not a ‘new village’ or hamlet there actually enhance the environment by providing habitats for insects and birds in the borders and gardens ?
– Aren’t people (who need houses) actually just as important as the fields ?
It’s not so much about whether to build or not, but the WAY it is done . Will it be another ‘soulless estate’ just like any other of the towns and cities ? Or will it be modelled upon the terrain and in harmony with the vernacular buildings of the area ?
(Hope this is not rejected again.)
But build on brown field first! I know of a few just begging for affordable housing for islanders. The only issue is location not good for second home owners. Which is why not used I bet.
no, the immigration and second home purchases need to stop
any councillor that advocates or approves building on any greenfield site needs arresting and sacking for wilful and wanton destruction of the environment, which reduces our air quality and increases the risk of poor health due to poor quality air and environment.
the council said climate emergency – the best way to reduce C02 is to have more greenfields and more trees to remove it naturally and restore the balance between the three sources of CO2 – air, earth and sea.
There is a finite amount of co2 on this planet -too much is in the air now. Put it back in the ground – with trees
The council is also proposing a new brownfield site policy: H9, ‘new housing on previously developed land’.
.
having had a barn on a site, with a small building for farm kit, will mean it had been “developed” – do not allow this underhand way of getting houses built on greenfields to be let through
So i have a big garden with a few brick sheds. Does this mean i can build a bunglow or granny flat on my garden with out any hassle from the so called leaders
If the dogooders stopped this problem at it’s roots then we wouldn’t have 2000 so called families on the register.
Make breeders share an over crowded house. Stop giving their offspring first dibs on a new home because they claim they have mental problems.
The whole system is a farce. Single mums knocking out kid after kid to get their 3 bed house, then move the boyfriend in and so the cycle continues.
Stop giving these freeloaders what they expect and we wouldn’t need to ruin Greenfield.
While your at it, make these youngsters get off their backsides and get out in the fields picking fruit and veg for their dole.
The council WILL NOT LISTEN they set there minds months ago lide to get votes and not man enough to own up the the rubbish the dribble out
if the RNLI weren’t taxing illegal immigrants across the chanell, then there would be less pressure – send them back immediately – france is not a country that is at war against those individuals personally and it is not the first country they arrived in after “apparently fleeing” the country they were in.
I agree, but unlike Australia we don’t have the laws or balls to turn them around or away.
We even give france £53 million to police their own coast line. They’re probably spending it on Notre dame and just laughing at us.
Gulible Islander, YOU like many clearly see it how it is. It is rare to read the truth without it being censored.
I guess we are still ‘just’ allowed to be critical of our own race, for now, soon they will, like others, only be ‘allowed’ to be mentioned if in a ‘positive’ light, thus not very often.
Total truth. I think the system is set up to keep people who see the truth apart because they fear strength of numbers challenging the set up of do gooders championing trash who have overrun our society.
Visitors come to the Island because its different to the main land if you councillors carry on down the same path as your are on holiday makers will go elsewhere you are killing the golden goose
How about turning all the shops that have closed down into flats?
What about the sites of disused prison land for housing – why is the former Camp Hill Prison still standing along with the disused farm and ex Parkhurst Prison club. There is approximately 200 acres owned by the ministry of justice around this area – adequate for probably 600 houses/new village with amenities to be built. Build here and stop infilling and lining developers pockets for second/holiday homes.
This Island will be overcrowded with houses and cars in less than 10 years if this council keep bowing down to government pressure over targets – time our MP and councillors looked up the meaning of NO and stuck by it.
why o why did we vote this bunch of useless money grabbing idiots into trying to run the council watch out next they will build rabbit hutched houses in your garden there are so many empty run down buildings in ryde alone that could be redeveloped into flats and houses i think I’m going to run for council and do the job properly
486 a year, every year is still TOO MANY. The islands infrastructure won’t cope, why can’t the councillors see this, we can. I suppose all the refugees have got to be housed!!!!!
And there you go all mouth about what they won’t do and we are in so sod the votes that got us here.
So where will the new hospital be built to handle all these people adding to the island then????? Stupid ideas from a stupid and lying and even more corrupt council.
Hasn’t taken long for this council to kow down to the developers, if all these new builds were for affordable housing to house the people on the housing list it would be acceptable but the true fact is that they are expensive houses for retirees from the mainland mainly and built for no other reason than to pour cash into developers pockets, this greed is destroying the Island.
Reg Dennis, before you get onto your high horse about retirees from the mainland, perhaps you ought to consider just how much we retirees actually contribute to the island economy and community; unlike second home owners who are here only a few weeks of the year.
Personally speaking, it has been my dream to live here for over 50 years. Would you begrudge me that ???
I would rather they booted off undesirables, druggies and the like and violent and aggressive vicious thugs, if they got rid of all of them then there may be more room. It is not the fact of retired people coming to live here so much as the lack of available space to house them all without building all over the countryside, which is presumably one of the reasons for why people wanted to come here in the first place.
REGENERATE all the empty above shops and derelict buildings on the Island and you wont need any Greenfield sites or Brownfield come to that.
Just a reminder of a couple of quotes from the leader of the Isle of Wight Council, Councillor Lora Peacey-Wilcox, when she took over… ‘the public voted for change so we are doing that’ and ‘a strong disciplined group that respects the wishes of voters’
Really? Because from where I’m sitting I can’t see much difference at all. They might call themselves something different to their predecessors but in fact they are all exactly the same. Unless, of course, there any hordes of people out there who actually want the Island swamped with more and more people and to have us building on greenfield sites to accommodate them?
Use ALL the BROWNFIELD sites FIRST…..
Then let’s see where we sit!!
This sounds like a “developers are paying the council lots of money to find the biggest area to develop on. Small plots of land with less than 10 spots are a waste of time for them. Lets destroy the open areas on the lovely island for a pay packet,” kind of article.
What I want to know is, when there is literally nowhere left to build because there is no space left anywhere to build, yet we still hear we need more homes, what then? Because we would, make no mistake about that. Because there will always be more people. The earth is finite but people breeding will never stop and the worse types of people they are, the more they breed, you only have to look around you to see that. How many typical lowlife come from large families, and have friends who also always have loads of family members all equally scummy as themselves?
Why have my comments not been posted here ?
Note: I am not The Isle of Wighter, for some reason we have a similar ‘name’.
Where on earth are they finding all these people in need of housing, they need to get their house in order before even thinking of increasing the island population. Let’s hope a few of them are dentists!
there is a big brownfield site in newport that monstrosity called County Hall its full of old farts and lying bas—rds demolish it and put houses there they can go to there other dump in seaclose park
Apart from brown field sites, all new building on the Island should be stopped. If the council is so short of housing why don’t they do something about all the holiday homes which remain empty for most of the year?
Are the authorities so thick that they really do not know we already have a serious problem in the shortage of GP Surgeries, Dentists and Hospital capacity. We cannot keep increasing the population. Stop pandering to government targets, we are an Island with very finite boundaries.